Com. v. Cruz-Zambrana, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 157 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S32011-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANGEL ENRIQUE CRUZ-ZAMBRANA : : Appellant : No. 157 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 18, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0004047-2023

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANGEL ENRIQUE CRUZ-ZAMBRANA : : Appellant : No. 165 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 18, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0003932-2023

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2025

Angel Enrique Cruz-Zambrana appeals from the judgments of

sentence,1 entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, following

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 On June 17, 2025, this Court consolidated Cruz-Zambrana’s appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513. J-S32011-25

his convictions at Docket Number CP-06-CR-0004047-2023 (No. 4047-2023)

of two counts of robbery,2 and one count each of person not to possess

firearm,3 carrying firearm without a license,4 theft by unlawful taking,5

receiving stolen property,6 prohibited offensive weapons,7 possessing

instruments of crime (PIC),8 terroristic threats,9 and simple assault;10 and at

Docket Number CP-06-CR-0003932-2023 (No. 3932-2023) of one count each

of person not to possess firearm, carrying firearm without a license, fleeing or

attempting to elude police officer,11 PIC, evading arrest or detention on foot,12

accidents involving damage to attended vehicle or property,13 reckless

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), (iii).

3 Id. at § 6105(a)(1).

4 Id. at § 6106(a)(1).

5 Id. at § 3921(a).

6 Id. at § 3925(a).

7 Id. at § 908(a).

8 Id. at § 907(a).

9 Id. at § 2706(a)(1).

10 Id. at § 2701(a)(3).

11 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3733(a).

12 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104.2(a).

13 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3743(a).

-2- J-S32011-25

driving,14 careless driving,15 driving without a license,16 failure to stop at red

signal,17 duties at stop sign,18 and turning movements and required signals.19

Additionally, Cruz-Zambrana’s counsel, William Bispels, Esquire, has filed an

application to withdraw as counsel, and an accompanying Anders20 brief.

Upon review, we deny Attorney Bispels’ application to withdraw and remand

to the trial court for a determination as to whether Attorney Bispels has

functionally abandoned Cruz-Zambrana on appeal.

In light of our disposition, we need not set forth a lengthy factual history

and, instead, note that a more thorough review is set forth in the trial court’s

opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/25/25, at 3-6. Briefly, on November 9,

2023, at 4:00 p.m., a masked man, armed with a sawed-off shotgun, robbed

Pawn Plus, located at 718 Lancaster Avenue, City of Reading, Berks County.

Police responded to the robbery and were ultimately able to identify the

14 Id. at § 3736(a).

15 Id. at § 3714(a).

16 Id. at § 1501(a).

17 Id. at § 3112(a)(3)(i).

18 Id. at § 3323(b).

19 Id. at § 3334(a).

20 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

-3- J-S32011-25

robber’s vehicle. On November 10, 2023, at 9:00 p.m., the police observed

the suspected vehicle, which triggered a twenty-mile vehicle pursuit

culminating in Cruz-Zambrana’s arrest. A search warrant was obtained and

the police recovered, inter alia,21 a sawed-off shotgun. Additionally, police

put together a photo line-up, at which one of the Pawn Plus employees

identified Cruz-Zambrana.

Cruz-Zambrana proceeded to a consolidated jury trial and, on October

23, 2024, the jury found Cruz-Zambrana guilty of the above-mentioned

offenses. The trial court deferred sentencing and ordered the preparation of

a pre-sentence investigation report.

On December 18, 2024, the trial court sentenced Cruz-Zambrana to an

aggregate period of 14 to 30 years’ incarceration across both dockets. Cruz-

Zambrana filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on

January 6, 2025.

Cruz-Zambrana filed a timely notice of appeal and both Cruz-Zambrana

and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On May 12, 2025,

Attorney Bispels filed an Anders brief in this Court, and an accompanying

21 The trial court more thoroughly sets forth the items recovered in its opinion.

See Trial Court Opinion, 4/25/25, at 5-6.

-4- J-S32011-25

application to withdraw. Cruz-Zambrana has not retained alternate counsel

or filed a pro se response raising any additional issues.22

Before addressing Cruz-Zambrana’s issues on appeal, we must

determine whether Attorney Bispels has complied with the dictates of Anders

and its progeny in petitioning to withdraw from representation. See

Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 986 A.2d 1241, 1244 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2009)

(“[w]hen presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the

merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to

withdraw”). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes that an appeal is

frivolous and wishes to withdraw from representation, he or she must:

(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record and interviewing the defendant, counsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous, (2) file a brief referring to any issues in the record of arguable merit, and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel or to raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s attention. The determination of whether the appeal is frivolous remains with the court.

22 We note that, on July 2, 2025, Cruz-Zambrana filed a pro se “Application

for Substitution of Appointed Counsel,” in which he stated that he does not read, write, or speak English well, that he does not understand appellate procedure or the legal jargon Attorney Bispels has communicated to him, that Attorney Bispels did not appeal the correct case, and that he wants to “get on the same page of people representing . . . me.” Application for Substitution of Appointed Counsel, 7/2/25, at 1. On July 25, 2025, this Court denied Cruz- Zambrana’s motion. See Order, 7/25/25, at 1 (citing Commonwealth v. Rogers, 645 A.2d 223 (Pa. 1994) (once appellate counsel has filed brief, appellant must proceed through counsel and claims of appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness may be raised at later time).

-5- J-S32011-25

Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citations omitted).

Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained that a

proper Anders brief must:

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

After determining that counsel has satisfied the technical requirements

of Anders and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct a simple review of

the record to ascertain if there appears on its face to be arguably meritorious

issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.”

Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en

banc).

Instantly, Attorney Bispels filed an Anders brief and a separate

application to withdraw from representation. Additionally, in his Anders brief,

Attorney Bispels stated he made a “thorough” review of the record and

concluded Cruz-Zambrana’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders Brief, at 17.

Attorney Bispels sent Cruz-Zambrana a letter informing him of Attorney

Bispels’ intention to withdraw and advising him of his right to proceed pro se

-6- J-S32011-25

or retain alternate counsel. The record reflects that Attorney Bispels furnished

Cruz-Zambrana with copies of the petition to withdraw and the Anders brief.

However, we conclude that the substance of Attorney Bispels’ Anders

brief is woefully deficient. The Anders brief summarizes the factual and

procedural history of this appeal and purportedly identifies 22 sufficiency

challenges. See id. at 17-18. Despite this, Attorney Bispels includes no

analysis and, instead, only provides a “Summary of Argument” that spans two

pages. See id. Further, the brief includes only a portion of a boilerplate

standard of review, does not cite to our standard of review, does not cite the

Crimes Code sections of Cruz-Zambrana’s 22 convictions, does not discuss

what, if any, of the elements of those crimes were or were not met, and does

not explain anything that arguably supports his client’s claims. See id.

Rather, Attorney Bispels’ entire brief amounts to a conclusion that Cruz-

Zambrana’s claims are frivolous because the two pawn shop clerks identified

Cruz-Zambrana by his voice. See id. at 18.

We cannot accept such a deficient Anders brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)

(argument shall include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are

deemed pertinent”); see also Commonwealth v. Armolt, 294 A.3d 364,

379 (Pa. 2023) (“[M]ere issue spotting without sufficient analysis or legal

support precludes appellate review.”). Furthermore, “[c]ounsel may not file

a brief that argues against his client’s interest. A brief that essentially argues

for affirmance is unacceptable.” Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753,

-7- J-S32011-25

758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted, emphasis added); see also

Commonwealth v. Smith, 324 A.3d 1241, n.2 (Pa. Super. 2024) (Table)

(denying Attorney Bispels’ application to withdraw and rejecting Attorney

Bispels’ Anders brief for “effectively supporting the trial court’s denial of the

claim, as opposed to concluding that any challenge to the court’s decision

would be frivolous”); Commonwealth v. Lenhardt, 2025 WL 2320443, *3

(Pa. Super. 2025) (Table) (this Court denying Attorney Bispels’ application to

withdraw and rejecting Attorney Bispels’ Anders brief for including only

boilerplate recitation of our standard of review and failing to explain “anything

that arguably supports his client’s claim”); Commonwealth v. Nelson, 2025

WL 2320320, *2 (Pa. Super. 2025) (Table) (denying Attorney Bispels’

application to withdraw and rejecting Attorney Bispels’ Anders brief for

including only boilerplate recitation of our standard of review and failing to

cite to any of the 13 crimes his client was convicted of, discuss the relevant

elements or facts of those crimes, and arguing in favor of affirmance);

Commonwealth v. Boozer, 2019 WL 5655295, at *4 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(unpublished memorandum decision) (“Although an appellant’s counsel is not

required to advocate strongly in favor of issues he believes are frivolous, a

brief that essentially argues for affirmance is unacceptable.”) (cleaned up).23

23 Boozer, Lenhardt, Nelson, and Smith were filed after May 1, 2019, and,

thus, may be cited for their persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).

-8- J-S32011-25

Therefore, Attorney Bispels’ brief, which sets forth conclusory

statements against Cruz-Zambrana’s interest and otherwise provides no

citations or analysis, does not fulfill the substantive requirements of Anders

and Santiago. Accordingly, we deny Attorney Bispels’ application to

withdraw.

Further, we observe that on August 26, 2025, Cruz-Zambrana filed, in

this Court, an application to proceed pro se. See Application to Proceed Pro

Se, 8/26/25, at 1-3. Cruz-Zambrana alleges that he is permitted to proceed

pro se because Attorney Bispels has filed an Anders Brief. See id. We note

that Cruz-Zambrana erroneously cites to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544

A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) in support his claim. Nevertheless, we conclude that this

filing, coupled with his previously filed application for substitution of counsel,

exhibits a need for the trial court to ascertain whether or not Attorney Bispels

has functionally abandoned Cruz-Zambrana.

Accordingly, we remand the instant case to the trial court for a Grazier24

hearing, at which the trial court shall determine whether Cruz-Zambrana

understands, reads, and writes the English language, whether he needs an

interpreter to assist him in his communications with his attorney, whether

Attorney Bispels has functionally abandoned Cruz-Zambrana, and whether

Cruz-Zambrana wishes to proceed pro se. Once the trial court has

24 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).

-9- J-S32011-25

memorialized its findings in an order, we further direct either Attorney Bispels

or newly appointed counsel to submit either an advocate’s brief or a compliant

Anders brief within 30 days from the date of the trial court’s order. The

Commonwealth shall have 30 days thereafter to file a responsive brief.

Petition to withdraw denied. Case remanded with instructions. Panel

jurisdiction retained.

- 10 -